from the does-anyone-believe-this-crap? dept

Honestly, it's somewhat difficult to believe that someone who works in the USTR didn't recognize that it was a bad idea to have their new boss, Michael Froman, who was once called one of the most "egregious examples" of the "revolving door" between companies and government, head out to visit two of the largest Hollywood studios just days after the IP chapter of the secretive TPP agreement was leaked, showing that it was basically Hollywood's wishlist of copyright crap. It's even more difficult to believe, given all that and given that Froman decided to go hang out with some friendly folks in Hollywood anyway, that someone at the USTR didn't think maybe, just maybe, Froman should avoid giving an interview in which he'd be asked about the leaked chapter.

But, it happened. Of course, the interview was with Variety, so maybe they figured that only Hollywood people would read it, and that the rest of the world would never catch on to the fact that Froman is either totally clueless or a blatant liar about the TPP. However, he did give an interview, while "touring Paramount's backlot" in which he said a bunch of nutty things. Here's my favorite:

He also called the talks over the trade pact “the most transparent trade negotiation in history,” noting that they have held more than 1,000 briefings on Capitol Hill, have enlisted 600 advisers for input from various groups and have invited stakeholders to address negotiators from all 12 countries, among other efforts.

Let's just say, this is pure bullshit. Extreme bullshit. Honestly, even Variety (which, as you might imagine, tends to toe the Hollywood line) seems to suggest that this claim isn't actually true. And, of course, considering that the USTR is infamously secretive, being "the most transparent in history" doesn't mean you were actually transparent at all. And, in this case, the fact that he's claiming it's "the most transparent in history" days after a chapter that no one in the public has seen during nearly four years of negotiations had to be leaked should highlight the level of bullshit that Froman is spewing.

He seems to have pulled this "most transparent" bullshit from his predecessor, Ron Kirk, who used to claim the same thing. Both are fundamentally trying to mislead. We've said it before, and we'll say it again, listening to lots of people, while not revealing what you're doing, is not transparency. It's listening. Listening may be better than not listening, but it's completely different than "transparency." Let me make this even clearer:

Listening: People ---- information -----> USTR

Transparency: USTR --- information ----> The Public

What Froman described above is about listening. They get "advice" from various stakeholders. That's not transparency. That's listening. So long as no one gets to see what crap they're negotiating "on our behalf," there's no transparency. At all. The only time this negotiation had any transparency was when Wikileaks finally released the IP chapter which the USTR should have and could have done years ago.

The other bit of bullshit in the interview was his misleading response to the claim by some that TPP is like SOPA. Now, I should be clear that we've avoided making that comparison, because there is a different set of issues here. And Froman used those differences to try to discredit all criticism of TPP:

“For example, as I understand it, I wasn’t around for it, (the Stop Online Piracy Act) was about blocking rogue Internet sites from accessing the Internet from the United States. There is nothing in the Trans Pacific Partnership, zero, that has anything to do with that,” he said.

But "blocking rogue websites" isn't what's making people make the comparison between TPP and SOPA. It's two things: (1) a backroom deal negotiated in secret with no input from the public which (2) includes basically a wishlist from Hollywood. The fact that the two wishlists are not identical is not really the point, but it's the point Froman chose to focus on, because he's trying to mislead the public.

Froman continues to demonstrate that he has no business in the role he's in:

“Our goal through these trade negotiations is to make sure we are raising the standard of protection around the world, for artists and the people who support them,” he said.

Except that's not supposed to be the goal at all, and the fact that he thinks it is makes him clearly unqualified for his job. Remember that the TPP is supposed to be about free trade, yet here he is admitting that his actual agenda is increasing protectionism. Second, as anyone who knows anything about intellectual property knows, "raising the standard of protection" has been shown repeatedly to be rather harmful to creators and the public. And, again, the entire purpose of copyright law is supposed to be about promoting progress for the public. It would appear that Froman doesn't know this. And yet he's in charge of negotiating this thing? Really?

This is the reason why transparency matters. Because when you take someone who doesn't understand intellectual property at all, such as Froman, and tell him to negotiate a trade agreement in which the only people he shares the negotiating text with are maximalists, all he hears is how they have to "raise" standards, even as most of the world has realized that the "standards" are already way too high and tremendously damaging to the economy and innovation.

Either way, this whole situation is incredible. You have the USTR, just days after the secret treaty that was written with the help of Hollywood's lobbyists is leaked out, declaring that it's the most transparent in history despite the fact that, if he had his way, none of the public would have seen it, and saying so while touring Hollywood studios. The USTR is either extremely confident that no one cares about trade agreements, or a large segment of the staff there is profoundly clueless. Or maybe it's both.

SOPA was taken down because it was a backroom deal and a Hollywood wishlist, without respect for the public. ACTA went down for the same reason. If Froman doesn't want the same thing to happen to TPP, he might want to learn a thing or two about intellectual property and what transparency means. Because as of right now, he appears to be setting himself up to be roadkill for another internet uprising.

Re:

Look at what it took to get a significant part of Congress to take the NSA issue seriously even after the Snowden leaks first came out. Most members of Congress initially defended the NSA until there was more and more information revealed publicly and a large enough outcry. If they think not enough people are paying attention to a particular issue because there isn't a big enough outcry against it, they will go along with just about anything, especially when those behind it are handing out big campaign contributions in order to support it. SOPA was expected to sail through and would have if it weren't for the backlash. Same with ACTA although most of that was in Europe instead of the US where it had already been signed. These people push this stuff try to sneak it though on many fronts hoping that they can get some of them past. The TPP is just another attempt. It's not a one and done game they are playing and opposition to it can't be handled that way either.

Listening?

No he's not listening to the people. He's listening to the special interests. He's PRETENDING to listen to the people then merely ignoring what they have to say. That's not even listening. That's something else entirely.

Re:

They did. Transsparency is a newer invention. 30 years ago, everything was happening in a vacuum where trade deals were implemented without any press about it, except for a political bragging here and there. The tribunals, has been a tradition for more than half a century even though it has only been used to force the hands on developing countries by EU and USA in particular (making a democratically acceptable and non-repressive tribunal is obviously going to be a nightmare since its traditional role has been in keeping the second and third world, well, second and third economically!).

In the last 15 years things have changed dramatically from including more oversight and transparency about implementation and now even approval is becoming a political issue!

TPP may very well be the most transparent bilateral or multilateral treaty outside of established organisations in the field, like WTO, WIPO etc.We will only know after the treaty is done!

Open processes during the negotiations can easily make some politicians climb too far into the media-tree to be able to make a fitting compromise. Most politicians in western countries know how to speak black and say a lot of words without saying anything at all, which is the best way to avoid being called out on broken promises and therefore creating an ideal negotiation position.

Unfortunately, not all are that versed in media-training. WTO has been in an unsolvable pin for 12 years and it is still going very strong. India is not gonna budge to USAs ultimate demands, so hoping for anything there is utopian. Even WIPO has lost a lot of its allure after the 2004 coop, from particularly developing nations, where non-rightholders got a say on some of the future WIPO issues (blasphemers!).

Today "trade negotiations" are the only true platform left for industries to impose policies on governments without the blackmail in lobbyism or pesky transparency watering the result down in other fora. Corruption is having a harder time with the modern level of transparency and that is making the western countries bend out of shape to keep transparency from expanding to "important" areas where corruption is needed!

But why doesn't Mike ever worry about the globalist aspects?

"The draft text for the TPP Intellectual Property Rights Chapter spells out provisions for implementing a transnational “enforcement regime” designed to supplant national laws and sovereignty with a globalist construct. The TPP is by far the largest and most oppressive economic treaty devised thus far. It will have an impact on a staggering 40 percent of worldwide GDP. The TPP is the forerunner to the equally secret US-EU Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Both treaties combined will cover 60 percent of world GDP and exclude China."

Re: Re:

I did. And I admit I was totally blindsided. I don't know if you realize what an anomaly SOPA was compared to almost any other piece of legislation.

But as you frequently cite in your articles, TPP is different. It's diplomacy, not legislation. It's multi-national so, a hue and cry from one nation doesn't necessarily win the day. TPP also doesn't lend itself to the sort of bumper sticker slogans and lies surrounding SOPA. Being an FTA, I think a lot of the people who were whipped up into a lather over SOPA won't see the connection. And since the impact (based on the leak) will largely limit changes to existing copyright rather than implementation of new measures. It is hard to excite people to rally against further codification of what they have right now. The lies will have to be real whoppers to turn out a meaningful crowd. And at whom will they rail? There are no co-sponsors, no mark-ups. The USTR doesn't have to worry about being re-elected. And in Congress, while fast track chafes a few asses, no one wants to run as the guy who voted to slow down a trade agreement that looks to provide more jobs and greater prosperity for the district. On the flip side, no one would be concerned about fast tracking the TPP which largely codifies existing copyright law and does a whole bunch of other things that may benefit job creation or economic expansion.

SOPA failed because of the political risk in supporting it. With TPP, it seems likely that there's greater political risk opposing fast track. Plus, the opponents of the IP chapter (in my estimation) tend to be younger- a particularly weak demographic in an off-year election.

At the lobbying and PR level, the talking points will be that this doesn't change copyright one bit in this country and look at all of the other massive benefits to the economy. Oh, and jobs, jobs, jobs. I don't think most of the voting public opposes the current state of copyright. Even with the the implementation of six strikes and the voluntary cooperation of ad networks, payment processors and search engines- there just hasn't been a popular outcry. Everyone seems to be taking in stride, the internet still isn't broken, no one is being cut off, etc. The parade of horribles has never come to fruition. Further, the corporate environment is different than with SOPA. You won't see the big SOPA opponents making a big stink over fast track.

We'll see how it all shakes out, but even taking into account the possibilities we saw with SOPA, I don't see a repeat. But…. game on. Let's see what you've got.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

No, it's not legislation. And I don't see anything that'd require a change to current law (legislation). Feel free to cite the leaked IP chapter and point out what you believe will require legislative change.

Oh, like "SOPA will break the internet"? or Justin Bieber will go to prison". Any objective look at those baldfaced lies reveals them as exactly the calculated bullshit that they were. I don't expect too many people to fall for it again…. other than you, of course.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"I don't see anything that'd require a change to current law (legislation)"

Then why does it exist? Seriously, if you're claiming no law needs to be changed then why is new TPP even necessary?

"Any objective look at those baldfaced lies reveals them as exactly the calculated bullshit that they were."

Except they won't. They may have been slight exaggerations, but they were based on fact. The "breaking the internet" thing in particular was a true problem, although last minute changes meant that the version being voted on didn't contain those clauses, IIRC. If you're keeping the actual legal language secret until the it's leaked, however, you can't then whine that people don't know what it says. Include the public and people who are making the objections from the start, then you don't have to put up with panicked last minute attempts to get people to understand what's being done.

Tell you what, instead of namecalling and rejecting opposition as being from people who "just don't understand", why not explain just why TPP is positive and why it's needed? I'm sorry, "trust us, it'll be OK" really doesn't fly, especially as the DMCA shows how different the spirit of the law and the way it's actually enforced can be.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"I don't see anything that'd require a change to current law (legislation)"

Then why does it exist? Seriously, if you're claiming no law needs to be changed then why is new TPP even necessary?

It extends US-level IP protection to other countries. Plus, it may surprise you to know that TPP is more than the IP chapter. To most of the world, the IP chapter is but a small part of the overall agreement.

"Any objective look at those baldfaced lies reveals them as exactly the calculated bullshit that they were."

Except they won't. They may have been slight exaggerations, but they were based on fact. The "breaking the internet" thing in particular was a true problem, although last minute changes meant that the version being voted on didn't contain those clauses, IIRC.

If you're keeping the actual legal language secret until the it's leaked, however, you can't then whine that people don't know what it says. Include the public and people who are making the objections from the start, then you don't have to put up with panicked last minute attempts to get people to understand what's being done.

Newsflash: In our style of government, the USTR negotiates the deal and Congress ratifies it…or not. They have the full text to read and consider before any vote.

Tell you what, instead of namecalling and rejecting opposition as being from people who "just don't understand", why not explain just why TPP is positive and why it's needed? I'm sorry, "trust us, it'll be OK" really doesn't fly, especially as the DMCA shows how different the spirit of the law and the way it's actually enforced can be.

At least from the standpoint of the IP chapter, TPP brings US style copyright protection to parts of the world where intellectual property law is weak. IMHO, protecting IP is vital to any economy not based on natural resources or agriculture (except in cases such as Roundup-ready grains and genetically modified crops). The remainder of the agreement lowers trade barriers and addresses (at some level) worker protections. The lowering of trade barriers is generally regarded as economically beneficial.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"I don't see anything that'd require a change to current law (legislation)"

"It extends US-level IP protection to other countries."

You do realise your answer contradicts your original statement, right?

"Jailing Justin Bieber a slight exaggeration?"

Jailing, yes. The actual point of the claim (higher penalties for the exact actions he made to get noticed), not so much. It was an emotional claim that was overselling the point, but the point still stands.

I apologise if you were left confused by the hyperbole some spun out of this, but that's what you get when you keep the public out of the loop and they only have a short amount of time to react. Include them from the start and you won't get the hyperbole (with the alternate problems of actually having to include them and not get everything one particular industry wants).

"TPP brings US style copyright protection to parts of the world where intellectual property law is weak."

Exactly. If you can't see the many, many problems with this statement alone, on both sides of the "deal", you're not listening to the actual objections.

"The lowering of trade barriers is generally regarded as economically beneficial."

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I meant US law. If you read the thread completely, I think that's evident. As far as bringing uniform protection to IP, I know we don't agree. But you need to stop pretending like there's stricter protection in the TPP for US than currently exists.

I presume that the countries engaged in TPP negotiations believe it beneficial, otherwise why are they there?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"I meant US law"

Indeed. But this is not something that just impacts the US, and therefore there are changes even if you're forcing everyone else to conform to what you think the standard should be. Negotiations *should* consist of debate and compromise on all sides, not one set of people saying "you have to do everything the way we want it".

"As far as bringing uniform protection to IP, I know we don't agree."

I agree that a uniform international standard would be very beneficial. I do not agree that the current US system should be that standard.

"I presume that the countries engaged in TPP negotiations believe it beneficial, otherwise why are they there?"

According to the story here a few days ago, New Zealand is largely involved because it opens up lucrative dairy exports. There's other similar objections from other countries. Nothing to do with IP except for the fact that the US is trying to withhold unrelated trade over this issue. They're there because they're forced to be there over disputes on things that have nothing to do with the TPP itself.

There's multiple aspects to this debate, and the fact that we have to depend on leaks to understand what's even being discussed is very concerning. Especially when those in charge of it are trying to claim it's a transparent process.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Ummmm.... Paul, it is a voluntary treaty. No country is forced to participate. And like any wide- ranging agreement, it is a package comprised of a wide variety of related and unrelated provisions. No one is "forced" to accept anything. And every country is able to provide input into the negotiations. At the end of the process, countries can opt in or opt out.

Notably, most countries place a higher premium on tangible, economic considerations than copyright. This is particularly true of the TPP countries, as opposed to say..... the ACTA nations.

And while I know there's nothing you'd like better than to have the IP chapter treated as a standalone, that's not the way things go. So deal with it. IP is important to the US and access to US markets is important to the other TPP states. So if you want to trade with the big boys, you have to have a robust IP protection regime. What do you think these countries will choose?

And when you figure out the answer; please break the news gently to Chubby- he is still in denial.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Ummmm.... Paul, it is a voluntary treaty."

No, it's a "voluntary" treaty. The US is clearly siding with the copyright industry at the expense of the rights of consumers both at home and abroad. If a superpower is trying to leverage unrelated trade agreements to force other countries to change their own laws, those other governments might not feel they have any choice other than at least appearing to comply.

"please break the news gently to Chubby"

Who is "chubby"? Are you so pathetic at this that you have to resort to playground name calling when you think someone else might have some valid points?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

According to the story here a few days ago, New Zealand is largely involved because it opens up lucrative dairy exports. There's other similar objections from other countries. Nothing to do with IP except for the fact that the US is trying to withhold unrelated trade over this issue.

That's kind of how it works. NZ has to figure out whether the proposed changes to its IP law (and other factors) are worth the economic gains it will see in the expansion of its dairy industry. The same is true for every country. It seems as though you realize that the rest of the world doesn't put the same premium on loosening IP law that you do and will take economic expansion over IP restriction. Maybe you're out of step with the rest of the world in terms of what really matters.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

That's kind of how it works. NZ has to figure out whether the proposed changes to its IP law (and other factors) are worth the economic gains it will see in the expansion of its dairy industry. The same is true for every country. It seems as though you realize that the rest of the world doesn't put the same premium on loosening IP law that you do and will take economic expansion over IP restriction. Maybe you're out of step with the rest of the world in terms of what really matters.

Thing is, most people intrinsically recognize that they shouldn't need to give up important personal rights (what the TPP IP chapter is all about) just so they can get more US purchases of their cows and sheep.

And that's what has people upset about this. They recognize that what is being proposed is intrinsically a bad deal. Give up rights that don't need to be given up, to get a trade deal that otherwise makes sense. Why not just do the trade deal?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Give up rights that don't need to be given up, to get a trade deal that otherwise makes sense. Why not just do the trade deal?

Ahh, but I believe that the majority of Americans and certainly the majority of the business community and government believe that IP is THE most important force driving the American economy. Our intellectual property is far more a factor driving our international success. It needs protecting because it has value and there are those who will steal it. So what is so back-breaking about adopting US style protection of IP? There is little IP to protect in the commerce of sheep and cows. But there is a great deal of IP to protect in many of the products the US hopes to sell abroad.

That's why we don't just "do the trade deal". Because the deal sucks if US innovation and intellectual property go unprotected.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Ahh, but I believe that the majority of Americans and certainly the majority of the business community and government believe that IP is THE most important force driving the American economy.

You believe wrongly. People believe that innovation and ideas and services are certainly driving the economy, but that's different than "IP." It's only clueless people who think the two are the same. Are you in that camp?

Our intellectual property is far more a factor driving our international success

This is simply untrue.

It needs protecting because it has value and there are those who will steal it

This is also untrue. You don't protect things that have value. You figure out how to build businesses around it. And you can't "steal" ideas. Try again.

This is why you keep failing. You seem to think things that are impossible are true. You should try some basic economics education.

There is little IP to protect in the commerce of sheep and cows. But there is a great deal of IP to protect in many of the products the US hopes to sell abroad.

You don't need to protect. You need to innovate. And bad IP laws make innovation harder. Seriously: you don't know what you're doing and you're hurting the American economy through your confusion and basic economic ignorance.

That's why we don't just "do the trade deal". Because the deal sucks if US innovation and intellectual property go unprotected.

PROTECTIONISM IS BAD. The whole point of free trade is to break down protectionism. And it's clueless people like you who seek to HURT the economy by putting up trade barriers.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

So I spend billions developing a new cancer drug or building a 3d printer that can replicate human organs or whatever. Then the massive fixed costs I've incurred should be ….what? Ignored? Those that risked no capital, engaged in no innovation whatsoever should be free to profit from the fruits of my labor? My innovation? My creativity? Fuck that.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

So I spend billions developing a new cancer drug or building a 3d printer that can replicate human organs or whatever. Then the massive fixed costs I've incurred should be ….what? Ignored? Those that risked no capital, engaged in no innovation whatsoever should be free to profit from the fruits of my labor? My innovation? My creativity? Fuck that.

Second, the "fruits of labor" argument is dead in the water. Even the Supreme Court has noted that IP is not about fruits of one's labor but, rather promoting the progress of science and the useful arts.

Third, the myth that the big new cancer drug or the 3d printer that can replicate human organs is the idea of a single brilliant mind or company is strong with you. It's a myth though. To get there, takes tons of follow on innovation -- nearly all of which is hindered, delayed or outright stopped thanks to stupid patent laws you like. The technology for basic 3d printing was available decades ago and went no where. Why is it starting to move forward now? Because the patents expired. Thanks for holding back innovation for two decades. Fuck THAT.

Fourth, the idea that just one company gets the ENTIRE FUCKING MONOPOLY is a huge problem. Let's say four companies all spend billions developing a cancer drug -- and the one who figures it out a day earlier gets the patent. What about your precious "fruits of their labor" for the other 3?

Fifth, let's ratchet that fourth one up: let's say that company number 2 in that race above has a better, safer, more effective solution -- that is kept entirely from the market because it's blocked by the patent party number one got. That's okay with you?

Sixth, you don't need a monopoly to profit from your work, and it's a myth among simple-minded fools that without protection freeriders destroy the market. Just look at the current market for drugs and generics. Even when a brand name drug goes off patent, it often remains priced at 10x to 20x the generic. Why? Because being first and having a brand gives you the ability to price things higher. You don't need protection for that. You need competition.

Seventh, nearly all of those kinds of innovations are actually based on taxpayer, federally funded research initially anyway. Why isn't it public domain.

Eighth, nearly every study has shown that too strong IP hinders or slows innovation. That's not to say that no IP is correct, but if you make it too strong it's a real problem. Locking everyone into identical IP regimes based on YOUR IGNORANT FAITH for what's right, means that you lose the ability to actually figuring out what benefits the world the most.

Ninth, good innovators know they can continue to innovate. Last year I brought together a group of a dozen of the top entrepreneurs in the country to do a roundtable for the White House, and the folks there kept asking them how they could help "protect" their IP. Finally, one of the entrepreneurs told them "we don't want protection. We're entrepreneurs and we know people will copy us and we're fine with that, because we know we can compete and out innovate them going forward." Only people who have never innovated think in static terms like you do.

Tenth, you MASSIVELY over value the idea and completely ignore the execution. If I spent billions of dollars developing a drug or a 3D scanner, it doesn't matter how easy it is to copy, that copier is going to fuck it up. They may understand the superficial, but they don't understand why it works, or why the market likes my product.

Your entire response is premised on an outsiders perspective of innovation, not someone who's ever innovated or competed in the market. That's why you're such a problem. You've never done anything and yet you think you know how it works. You don't. So stop fucking it up for the rest of the world.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"So I spend billions developing a new cancer drug or building a 3d printer that can replicate human organs or whatever. Then the massive fixed costs I've incurred should be ….what? Ignored? Those that risked no capital, engaged in no innovation whatsoever should be free to profit from the fruits of my labor? My innovation? My creativity? Fuck that."

Second, the "fruits of labor" argument is dead in the water. Even the Supreme Court has noted that IP is not about fruits of one's labor but, rather promoting the progress of science and the useful arts.

Our IP system recognizes an exclusive use which creates the financial incentive for creators to promote such arts and sciences.

Third, the myth that the big new cancer drug or the 3d printer that can replicate human organs is the idea of a single brilliant mind or company is strong with you. It's a myth though. To get there, takes tons of follow on innovation -- nearly all of which is hindered, delayed or outright stopped thanks to stupid patent laws you like. The technology for basic 3d printing was available decades ago and went no where. Why is it starting to move forward now? Because the patents expired. Thanks for holding back innovation for two decades. Fuck THAT.

Way to ignore the fact that the initial innovation may not have been funded had there not been a period of exclusivity for the creators to recoup their investment.

Fourth, the idea that just one company gets the ENTIRE FUCKING MONOPOLY is a huge problem. Let's say four companies all spend billions developing a cancer drug -- and the one who figures it out a day earlier gets the patent. What about your precious "fruits of their labor" for the other 3?

Seriously? Four companies come up with precisely the same formula within days of each other?

Fifth, let's ratchet that fourth one up: let's say that company number 2 in that race above has a better, safer, more effective solution -- that is kept entirely from the market because it's blocked by the patent party number one got. That's okay with you? Got an example? I see products like Lipitor, Crestor and Pravachol all co-existing to reduce cholesterol.

Sixth, you don't need a monopoly to profit from your work, and it's a myth among simple-minded fools that without protection freeriders destroy the market. Just look at the current market for drugs and generics. Even when a brand name drug goes off patent, it often remains priced at 10x to 20x the generic. Why? Because being first and having a brand gives you the ability to price things higher. You don't need protection for that. You need competition.

I never said a monopoly was needed. That's not the case in cholesterol drugs and in most of the rest of the universe of productives there's more than one single way.

Seventh, nearly all of those kinds of innovations are actually based on taxpayer, federally funded research initially anyway. Why isn't it public domain.

Maybe true for some types of research, not at all true for copyright which is what you usually are wailing about.

Eighth, nearly every study has shown that too strong IP hinders or slows innovation. That's not to say that no IP is correct, but if you make it too strong it's a real problem. Locking everyone into identical IP regimes based on YOUR IGNORANT FAITH for what's right, means that you lose the ability to actually figuring out what benefits the world the most.

I'd argue that the US is the most robust, innovated IP intensive economy on earth. While our IP regime may be imperfect, I'd like you to cite a more innovative economy whose IP system is better.

Ninth, good innovators know they can continue to innovate. Last year I brought together a group of a dozen of the top entrepreneurs in the country to do a roundtable for the White House, and the folks there kept asking them how they could help "protect" their IP. Finally, one of the entrepreneurs told them "we don't want protection. We're entrepreneurs and we know people will copy us and we're fine with that, because we know we can compete and out innovate them going forward." Only people who have never innovated think in static terms like you do.

Given the state of play in this country, I'd suggest that the group you assembled and the single entrepreneur you cited are the minority. Plus, they probably have little if any proprietary IP of their own to protect- instead relying on the innovation of others. Of course they don't care about IP.

Tenth, you MASSIVELY over value the idea and completely ignore the execution. If I spent billions of dollars developing a drug or a 3D scanner, it doesn't matter how easy it is to copy, that copier is going to fuck it up. They may understand the superficial, but they don't understand why it works, or why the market likes my product.

Execution matters, but so does the idea.

Your entire response is premised on an outsiders perspective of innovation, not someone who's ever innovated or competed in the market. That's why you're such a problem. You've never done anything and yet you think you know how it works. You don't. So stop fucking it up for the rest of the world.

And you are speaking to me as what…. the creator of the spectacular flop you call Step 2? Go raise a million dollars, make a movie, return the investment to your backers and make some money for yourself commensurate with your efforts. Then come back and we'll talk about competition in an IP space where enforcement and protection matter. There is absolutely nothing that you do that is subject to the corrosive effect of piracy or IP infringement. So don't presume to lecture people from the grandstands.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"OK, so apply it to my $100 movie. "

Assuming you meant "$100 million", what is it about anonymous arrogant fools on this site and their obsession with that figure? Realistically, all it means is that you don't give 2 shits about independent artists and people who actually innovate, you're just pushing for protection of corporate profits. Take a moment to ponder why that doesn't fly, especially when the changes pushed actually prevent new and more flexible alternatives from being made possible, especially by those without large corporate portfolios and lawyers.

Assuming you meant "$100 million", what is it about anonymous arrogant fools on this site and their obsession with that figure? Realistically, all it means is that you don't give 2 shits about independent artists and people who actually innovate, you're just pushing for protection of corporate profits. Take a moment to ponder why that doesn't fly, especially when the changes pushed actually prevent new and more flexible alternatives from being made possible, especially by those without large corporate portfolios and lawyers.

Actually, indy filmmakers fare even worse at the hands of the thieving scum you routinely defend around here. Indies seldom have a distribution agreements, don't get studio financing, etc. Fear of piracy is a huge factor in why banks don't lend to these types of productions. Thus fewer indies get made, censoring the free speech and expression of those artists. But I guess that suits you just fine, huh?

Actually, indy filmmakers fare even worse at the hands of the thieving scum you routinely defend around here. Indies seldom have a distribution agreements, don't get studio financing, etc. Fear of piracy is a huge factor in why banks don't lend to these types of productions. Thus fewer indies get made, censoring the free speech and expression of those artists. But I guess that suits you just fine, huh?

I talk to indie filmmakers all the time and I know of NO ONE who thinks now isn't the BEST time to be a filmmaker, given that they don't feel they need a "distribution agreement" any more, since they can go their own way, and use the innovative tools you would like to shut down.

They can use Kickstarter and IndieGoGo to finance. They can use Twitter and Facebook to promote. They can distribute via Netflix, Amazon, iTunes and YouTube.

And the number of films being made today continues to go up, not down, as you claim.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Easy enough, though. We've got a ton of articles on the site detailing tons of innovative business models for content creators that don't require protectionist policies.

Our IP system recognizes an exclusive use which creates the financial incentive for creators to promote such arts and sciences.

But that's entirely different than "fruits of one's labor." It also includes LIMITS on those exclusive rights, and the PURPOSE of those exclusive rights is solely to promote the progress of knowledge. But you knew that and left that out for... what? Because you think people don't know?

Way to ignore the fact that the initial innovation may not have been funded had there not been a period of exclusivity for the creators to recoup their investment.

If you knew anything about innovation you'd know this is an easily solvable problem. But you don't. You just try to write the laws that pretend you do. First, it assumes that you need exclusivity to make money. You don't: unless you're a moron. Second, it assumes that the only way to get investment is if you have the exclusive. That's not true. I didn't "ignore" it. I just know it's not a big deal.

Seriously? Four companies come up with precisely the same formula within days of each other?

It was a hypothetical. Get a dictionary. But, again, if you knew anything about anything, you'd know that simultaneous invention is extremely common. And, under our current system you prefer to FUCK OVER everyone who didn't come in first, even if their solution is better.

Got an example? I see products like Lipitor, Crestor and Pravachol all co-existing to reduce cholesterol.

Strawman. Totally unrelated to the point I was making. But do you seriously not know of companies that went out of business because of patent infringement claims? Oy. Please: stay the fuck away from our laws. You're completely ignorant of the real world.

I never said a monopoly was needed.

And yet you support monopolies. Clue for you: a patent and a copyright are a monopoly. By definition you ARE saying monopolies are needed. Because you don't understand economics.

Maybe true for some types of research, not at all true for copyright which is what you usually are wailing about.

You used patents as your example. So that's what I was discussing. Copyright is an even *easier* battle, because the business models are even more obvious, as we've been detailing for over a decade.

I'd argue that the US is the most robust, innovated IP intensive economy on earth. While our IP regime may be imperfect, I'd like you to cite a more innovative economy whose IP system is better.

Correlation, not causation. Our success today is in spite of our bad IP laws. Note that as IP laws have gotten stricter, total factor productivity has continued to drop, showing that we're innovating less and less than we would be doing under other circumstances.

Given the state of play in this country, I'd suggest that the group you assembled and the single entrepreneur you cited are the minority.

You'd suggest, but you'd be wrong. These were some of the most successful entrepreneurs today. The guy in question has built multiple *massively* successful companies that have made a lot of people very, very well off, while providing the public tremendous benefit as well. You could learn from someone like him. But you won't, because they don't lob tons of money to DC insiders who act like bigshots.

Plus, they probably have little if any proprietary IP of their own to protect- instead relying on the innovation of others.

Wrong again, but nice try. If you actually worked in an innovative world you'd know that "protection" is the last thing on the mind of innovators. They know they can out compete.

Execution matters, but so does the idea.

Entrepreneurs know that ideas *barely* matter. The best explanation I've seen of this is from Derek Sivers: http://sivers.org/multiply but look around. Tons of other successful entrepreneurs have said the same thing. None of the top investors invest in an idea, either. They invest in people who can execute.

And of the thousands of startups I've interacted with, I can count on ONE HAND, the number of companies whose final product was *anything* even close to the initial idea. And the only super successful company I know of who matched their initial vision to the execution is just one: Dropbox.

The idea is something to work around, but any entrepreneur knows that ideas die when they breathe in the air of the real world. It's all about execution.

And you are speaking to me as what…. the creator of the spectacular flop you call Step 2? Go raise a million dollars, make a movie, return the investment to your backers and make some money for yourself commensurate with your efforts. Then come back and we'll talk about competition in an IP space where enforcement and protection matter. There is absolutely nothing that you do that is subject to the corrosive effect of piracy or IP infringement. So don't presume to lecture people from the grandstands.

I've raised over a million dollars. I didn't make a movie, but I built a successful company and my investors are quite happy. And I did it without relying on IP. At all.

I'm not in the grandstands. I built a rather successful company -- built on content, nearly all of which is given away.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"There is little IP to protect in the commerce of sheep and cows."

So why is it involved in the negotiations about IP, except for a handy extortion tactic?

Paul, there are any number of chapters in the TPP. One relates to IP. Others relate to other economic aspects of trade. The IP chapter is important to IP intensive economies like the US. Agrarian, natural resource and manufacturing economies find other chapters far more important to their interests. I don't know why you refuse to understand that trade treaties are baskets of provisions (chapters) that affect different economies in different ways.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

So, again a non-answer that amounts to "my opinion is the truth and if you disagree you must not be educated". Nice. Your words only raise the question of why these completely disparate and unrelated industries are thus treated in the same agreements since bowing to the needs of one industry so clearly damages another. No, "that's the way it's done" is not an answer.

These are all necessary components of a package that is the final agreement. The parties have varying levels of interest in each of the areas. So it is virtually impossible to come to an overarching agreement without considering all factors jointly.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You have no idea what you're talking about. In twenty years you'll be at the forefront again whining how your grandchildren's grandchildren aren't protected by copyright so we need to extend it to double-life plus 105.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

" NZ has to figure out whether the proposed changes to its IP law (and other factors) are worth the economic gains it will see in the expansion of its dairy industry."

Which is utterly ridiculous. the free speech and other rights of its own citizens have to be curtailed in order for them to export more milk?

If this was private industry, they'd be breaking any number of antitrust, competition and other laws, and maybe even be guilty of extortion. But it's your country doing it, so it's OK, yeah?

"Maybe you're out of step with the rest of the world in terms of what really matters."

Maybe I'm not, your government just has more say over what those other countries do than their own citizens. Which is not right. I'm sorry if you don't agree, but I still have my freedom of speech at this point, so I'll exercise it thank you very much. Try coming up with a convincing reason why I'm wrong if you disagree, because you've not been very convincing up to this point.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Exactly what free speech laws and other rights will be violated in your country by the implementation of the IP chapter?"

Exactly none, since neither the country of my birth nor the country of my residency are included in the agreement. Of course, if you'd have stopped trying to pretend things about my opinion long enough to see who you were talking to, you'd realise that. But strangely enough, the fact that I'm not personally affected by the agreement at this very moment does not mean I cannot be concerned about it or it's ramifications for the future.

Mr. "educate yourself if you disagree with my gospel word" failed to educate himself before issuing an opinion. How ironic.

As for the opinions of New Zealanders, why not refer to the previous articles dealing with concerns being raised by citizens of those countries. Listening to them instead of assuming they're wrong or ignorant might be enlightening.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Maybe you're out of step with the rest of the world in terms of what really matters."

Maybe I'm not, your government just has more say over what those other countries do than their own citizens. Which is not right. I'm sorry if you don't agree, but I still have my freedom of speech at this point, so I'll exercise it thank you very much. Try coming up with a convincing reason why I'm wrong if you disagree, because you've not been very convincing up to this point.

If you live in a democracy and can vote, perhaps you should put in place a government that represents the interests of the majority of its citizens. Or perhaps it already does.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"If you live in a democracy and can vote, perhaps you should put in place a government that represents the interests of the majority of its citizens."

Sorry, that crap doesn't fly. I get to discuss and voice my opinions all the time, and I also have the right to contact my elected representative, make them consider all opinions or even get them thrown out if they have done something particularly egregious. A democracy doesn't involve people only being allowed to speak once every election. It involves constant communication between the people and their elected representatives, and sometimes they even listen - especially if the debates around the subjects in question have altered a number of peoples' views between elections.

Perhaps if tools like yourself were capable of debating the issues instead of trying to tell people what they should think, you'd understand this.

"Or perhaps it already does."

It most likely does. But on which issue? No perfect candidate exists, so people either vote on a single issue or loyalty to one party. People who vote on issues can disagree completely with their candidate on some issues, but at the moment of voting consider other issues to be more important. But, they are still free to make sure their representatives understand differing opinions on those other issues. That's how democracy works.

Also, in many democracies, you have limited options. If all candidates support sucking up to the US but one candidate offers a reform to the housing sector at the same time, that doesn't mean that by voting for the housing guy you support everything else or you lose your voice until the next one.

Shutting out all dissenting opinion might be convenient, but it's not how a free society works - especially when all the negative policies being introduced are being done so at the behest of a foreign power.

Re: Re: Re:

But as you frequently cite in your articles, TPP is different. It's diplomacy, not legislation. It's multi-national so, a hue and cry from one nation doesn't necessarily win the day. TPP also doesn't lend itself to the sort of bumper sticker slogans and lies surrounding SOPA. Being an FTA, I think a lot of the people who were whipped up into a lather over SOPA won't see the connection. And since the impact (based on the leak) will largely limit changes to existing copyright rather than implementation of new measures. It is hard to excite people to rally against further codification of what they have right now.

Shhhhh, everyone. It appears our resident "insider" maximalist totally missed ACTA. I realize it's tough and all, seeing as it didn't happen in America, and this particular specimen of DC-copyrightus-maximalist-lobbyitus is known for their incredible myopia for non-US happenings, but, really, you'd think that the puppet masters would have at least sent over a BBC article or something...

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I didn't miss ACTA, but perhaps you missed the fact that TPP stands for Trans Pacific Partnership. The countries involved have a somewhat different outlook on these matters. The citizens do too and internet use and prominence of copyright issues are quite dissimilar as well. Other than that, you're spot on.

As I said, we shall see what happens. But if you think this is going the way of ACTA, you simply don't understand the differences. This isn't Europe. And most of the current noise isn't being generated outside of the US. And the objection within the US isn't resonating for the reasons I listed above.

So where do you think it gets derailed? Australia, Brunei, Chile, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam are very different cultures with very different economic issues. For a treaty so far down the road, the "uprising" has been laughable thus far. I don't see any threat outside of the US. And within the US, I sure as hell haven't seen any meaningful opposition. So why not tell us how the "Pacific Spring" will roll out and kill TPP?

Very Transparent

Most transparent

He's right it IS one of the most transparently negotiated treaties in history, but he cannot take credit for that. It's only transparent because of dedicated people on the inside that have chosen to leak the information which has allowed it to be transparent. In the past no one would know about it until it was already a done deal.

Re: 1984 effect

Congress apparently doesn't think it has enough slush funds in the campaign war chest and but the repubs and the dems have sent letters to the president about not renewing the fast track authority George Bush got in 2002. It expired in 2007.

Obama claims he is afraid that congress will load the trade treaty with additions that will invalidate the agreement with other countries.

If there is one thing I have learned from the political discourse, it is not to believe anything you are hearing. When you see actions instead of words you know the real purpose behind the methods. Of course that is much too late to do anything about but creditability isn't something USTR has to worry about is it?